Philosophy Arena
Natalism / Life Creation A prime clarification is that Efilism is not opposed to life "in it of itself" but does acknowledge life creation has no logical or sane basis. One of the main Efilism targets is the fact if someone does recognize a preciousness or definite value in life, that is all the more reason to never create life. This is because: A; DNA is the creator of torture and has no concern for life B: The universe is a blender of sharp and blunt objects, and will agonizingly mangle the preciousness beyond recognition, and also has no concern for life So placing life in between A. and B. is essentially like using radioactive material for a jewel shop, setting up the jewel shop in the middle of a ballistic warzone, then wondering why your jewel shop plan doesn't quite seem to be turning a profit, and is actually incurring rather catastrophic damage. Antinatalism Anti-natalist arguments explored in further depth. Absolute Antinatalism Efilism recognizes all sentient and sensory systems have no sound reason to exist. Meaning even if a non-DNA life form, but sufficiently similar nonetheless, took form inside the universe, it would be open to the same scrutiny. (DNA in it of itself is not the ultimate problem.) Any form that does nothing except open the potential to catastrophe, in attempt to serve a need, or fix a problem, that the system(s) themselves are responsible for to begin with, is when an error turns into a catastrophic error. Because all types of sentience is self-defeating by fact of its own existence, because even needing pleasure is a problem, ''not a benefit or solution. EFILism is against all anti-mortalism. That is any event or process that would subsist life. Meaning even life's prior contingency is an error. A non-living error is of course different to logical/living error. Suffice to say that "error" in these terms is a nomological error. But non-living, logical, non-logical, or otherwise, this error remains in fact an indefensible blunder of chaos. If you want to know what created (or what constitutes) the entire concept of error, it is that underlined phrase which wraps/cascades/roots all error. Responsible for it all, this type of error is similarly not a sane/useful function, or a solution, to anything, or for anything. There is also a technicality. If a life form were able to completely eliminate all these errors, the potentiality for error itself, then it would be most logical to be pro-that-life form. But that life form is only conceivable as a synthetically designed function that is failsafe and hyper-intelligent -- able to calculate in maximally efficient terms how to eliminate life and life's contingency. Like if it found how to turn the entire universe into a black hole that maintained itself forever. Or an undiscovered way to reach the ceiling of universal force. Some new series of particles, that could be eye-of-newt comboed into generating so much force that the universe's equilibrium is knocked offline forever. You might say that black hole or "ultimate destabilization" doesn't have a "sane function" either and is also just mindless error -- on the contrary -- it has the function that would prevent all other dysfunction and all other error. Think of such a phenomenon as a failsafe lock to pandora's box of insanity. Nihilism The case against nihilism. The Universe / Nomological Deterministic Chaos The universe is not randomly designed, not freely designed, not intelligently designed, and not purposefully designed. The correct description of this design is ''nomological deterministic chaos. There is probably more chemistry nuance in one insect than in most entire planets in the universe. Our planet is the most chemically-chaotic vessel that we have ever discovered, that is exactly why DNA was woven together in it. We understand DNA life forms are chaos mutants, they are patterns of matter and force that happen to fall together - temporarily - before inevitably falling back apart. So how was chaos brought into existence? How did chaos become instantiated and determined in the universe? In terms of how it all started to begin with: An amusing but primitive analogy would be to say it's when 0 was divided by 0 - a crude analogy, but might not be that far off from the truth. In terms of how the process keeps happening: Here is a more rationally comprehensible and easily defendable analogy. Chaos is when a 1 crumbles into a crooked 1, then crumbles further into crooked 2s, so on and so forth, until there is a scattering and array of non-identical configurations. Identity is the key concept in chaos. Universal chaos requires Time, Space, Identity. It is only through the fact of non-identicality that separate and non-identical configurations could possibly emerge. Hence any of this even happening. That is what "happening" is. These non-identical configurations are made of matter, but are kept together by force. Old crumbled ingredients can re-combine differently into new whole configurations. These configurations are made of matter, but are kept together by force. These configurations even carry (old) previous force, which creates (new) momentum force with the matter. And this captured-and-carried force is what keeps the machinery of chaos running -- self-sustained. Chaos is just crumbling old configurations whose crumbling pieces now have force behind them and are smashing together new configurations. Chaos is woven together indiscriminately and purposelessly, but momentously and deterministically -- there is no dice in this game, no point in this game, the rules and results are absolute. The universe is just clockwork, analog pieces, that are dead but moving. Brains, life, computers, calculators, and senses are digital pieces, who paradoxically emerge from dead analog pieces. It is only after ample and sufficient complexity and momentum is carried forward, then ran as a circuit loop inside a configuration, that a full blown online configuration like this emerges. We are alive, despite being 100% made out of dead rudimentary protons and electrons. Because the pattern of chaos is making protons and electrons dance in an astronomically rare circuit. And of course: In their attempt to decipher reality, these configurations have an emotional knee-jerk compulsion and a neurological mandate to coherence. Attempting to assign and maintain various "purposes" to this truly purposeless braindead raw mechanism of chaos. And life is necessarily contingent on that which created life, but neither the contingency nor life itself is necessary, it is just a happenstance. This happenstance of chaos can permanently end at any time this non-necessary contingency is released: that is, both life and life's contingency is so "changeable" that it's "effaceable"; life is not necessarily the case. On the contrary -- everywhere else in the mapped universe necessitates life's absence -- and universal heat death will seal it forever. Earth is the only pocket in the known universe that wove together a chemical mutated chaos such as the DNA Life Experiment. And even in this pocket, life can be annihilated and become like every other spot, nothing will be amiss, nothing intelligent or logical necessitates life's existence. Life is infinitely unmissable. But there's a problem. Almost no one is a real evolutionist, even the ones purporting to understand evolution, still imbue DNA with some dogmatic sense that it has a real plan. They sincerely believe it looks after its own somehow, or has net utility. Despite the fatal irony that DNA staged a global gladiator war of Team DNA vs Team DNA - and commenced the ongoing 540 million year bloodsport of zero-sum self-defeating carnage. (This is also known as "predator vs prey", one of the many glib euphemisms designed to whitewash the severity of implication behind this catastrophic experiment.) Psychology Efilism has noted "psychology" is the antonym of philosophy. There is only: A: Correct (objective) data B: Incorrect (non-objective) data There is absolutely nothing outside or in between A and B. Psychology is merely an ink that corrupts objective data. Objective data meaning, in the purest possible sense, what is the case, and what is not the case. The only reason it's even possible to transcend and escape psychology and biology is because of metacognition. Psychology and biology makes fools out of the systems on earth. And it is through e''pistemological models'' and metacognitive models we contact nomological models (objective reality) - which then makes fools out of psychological models and biological models. A psychology is "DNA's very own". It's just the selfish gene's computation: a fundamentally biased, skewed, cut-throat distortion. A psychology is designed to pander to itself, and endlessly cheat/twist logic and truth. Psychology is also a form of entrapment, and not just any form. Given the fact that free will doesn't exist, and given the fact that the same brain that produces the sensation of torture also produces the experienced desperation to avoid the exact torture being produced by the system, this DNA system is the most fundamentally malignant and insidious form of entrapment even possible. Ironically (and predictably), the academic field of psychology has been hijacked by skewed biased systems -- the academic field of psychology was a system designed to expose psychological corruption, but it became psychologically-corrupt. The most prominent corruption took the form of psychiatry, which became even further corrupted (beyond any sane recognition) by capitalist pharmacology. "Maybe then we might have a better idea... why exactly certain forms of self-deception were adaptive and became superbly robust, spilling over into the enterprise of philosophy and science itself." - Thomas Metzinger Pessimism and Optimism Pessimism: The glass is half empty. Optimism: The glass of half full. Objective truth: The glass is approximately 50% capacity, but not actually, because even on perfect 50% balance, some surface sections would be below and others would be above 50% capacity, and even this would be changing by the nanosecond as atoms shift and liquid evaporates. Agnosticism/Skepticism Subjectivism/Relativism As mentioned, there is only correct (objective) data, or incorrect (non-objective) data. This makes it hard for subjectivists/relativists to make a coherent case. You'll find the problem with such philosophy is that it's not anchored: it's a fallacious form of evasion. It exists part-and-parcel as not being anchored to anything objective. It's like saying "It's objectively true that objective truth doesn't exist." Despite all evasion, they are inevitably caught right here, between the self-refutation fallacy and special-pleading fallacy. Their self-refutation/special-pleading is immediately obvious, but goes into a level of abstraction they may not even see: Subjectivism must objectively establish subjectivity to refute objectivity, because if even their subjectivism is subjective, then it has no weight and their case can just be thrown out! And this is the crucial point, even subjectivism still requires an objective basis to insert subjective basis. And it either claims no objective basis so it can't, or it uses an objective basis for subjectivism, which just proves that objectivity is really the correct ultimate truth. This leads us to discover their philosophy is not only unproven, but is logically impossible. It's a rhetorical gimmick and a sophistry. It's part of intellectual dishonesty and laziness to act like minute-made rhetoric (in this case, subjectivity and relativity) just happens to be the only objectivity. ''It's just too typical to go that route. Rather than learning philosophy, discovering what formal objectivity looks like, then making a case you actually backed with sincere effort and testing. Randomness The entire concept of "random" is just a vogue version of "god-of-the-gaps". It's to suggest that, when there is not a discernible/predictable pattern or effect, that means "randomness did it" or "it's got properties of randomness". This is a failure of intellectual honesty. Because randomness could be eliminated ''completely, by just admitting you lack the information about the phenomena, that's it. Rather'' than saying it has randomness in it or somehow has random property to it. There is absolutely no need to ever invoke randomness in a model of reality. But why would childish minds bother with such simplicity and honesty? After all, randomness is such an easy surrogate to pseudo-science and psychotic world-models (the charades humanity is so undyingly fond of). Even intellectual frauds can keep participating in the charade - instead of "god and magic" they can have "quantum-mechanics and randomness" to keep the magical spooky action at a distance alive in their head. Randomness is baggage, from an old inept world model and fits 2 main categories: # Randomness is an incoherent concept - a ''misconception # Randomness is a failure of formal semantics - a misnomer It's just a chunk of debris that came from old failed experiments of logic and semantics, but it never got properly discarded from language, that's the only real problem remaining with it. 10 seconds of computer science research also confirms that computers can't even produce randomness - it's called Pseudo-random Number Generation - because there is no such thing as 'authentically random'. The concept has been and is ready to be retired. Morals The word/concept of "morality" is next on the chopping block. The correct modern term is ethics and we're dealing with ethical equations. Morality is a useless archaic concept, always based on dogma. Morals have nothing to do with a demonstrable value/qualia/sensory equation, or applying logic to an ethical dilemma. Morals are just screed that is mindlessly passed down from generations. Morals are contrived and meaningless normative declaration of groupthink, bias, and psychology. Morals cannot be logically defended. Nobody who has any understanding of rational value judgement (that is honest, true, or that accurately deals with any circumstance whatsoever) would use the word "morality". It's a word for obsolete failed religious world models, and it's ready for retirement. Hivemind Yes it's time, we couldn't forget about the most generalized brainless force in our zeitgeist. The glib nay-saying of a peasant. The congealing swamp of peasant and normative status-quo psychology. Have you ever talked to any of them? Have you ever been to a comment section on the internet? The hivemind operates on an entire code made of glib jeering knee-jerk-reactionist meaningless ego-tripping. This language is the reason they are peasants, and stay peasants. This is a circuit that's externalized as real neural signalling. The signals of "If I can't have it, neither can you." Which very often translate equally into "If I can't figure it out, neither can you." It's the signal that makes any new proposition seem impossible. All novelty is immediately rejected by a hiveminded peasant, no matter how true it is. Imagine winding the clock back, going to the hiveminded and telling them atomic power is possible. Telling them that you can split a thing so small you can't see it and it would decimate a city. The hivemind would infinitely mock that notion as being utterly impossible. Because human intuition is garbage. Their knowledge is bankrupt. Their rhetoric is hollow. Their world models are unexamined and almost useless. But their egos are ballooned into something they cannot see through. What a hivemind worships is the feeling of certainty.'' ''They don't have real answers or counterarguments. They treat their gut-logic instinct, hunches, half-baked memes and unwitty witticisms as some type of infallible code being ran through their heads. But they are spineless and divided they're hopeless. If they are verbally handled one vs one, even after a little strength and persistence, they fold completely. The hiveminded peasant can only thrive by side-heckling or running off a crowd-mentality. Physics The Theory Of Everything